Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Essex are using Linux and tiny embedded computer modules to build fleets of unmanned aircraft that fly in flocking formations like birds, while performing parallel, distributed computing tasks using Bluetooth-connected Linux clustering software. The Gridswarm project includes model trainers that can fly 120mph, while a parallel Ultraswarm project uses co-axial helicopters. A prototype of the later is believed to the world's smallest flying web server. The aircraft will run Linux on embedded computing modules from Gumstix."

You know, I wonder WHY does one NEED a flying webserver that's small? If you've got to dish out websites from something that flies why not park a high-altitude blimp up at, oh..say, 50,000 feet and beam down the internet from there? Or... why not park a box full of anetna, electronics, bateries, and solar cells into orbit and do the same from there?

If you need a cluster of machines to work in paralell for greater number-crunching power, why not by a big server rack and throw in a bunch of 1U sized machines

I agree with the why; no matter how cool it would be to be sniffing for wifi and running across the webservers' routing from my home machine, it seems silly to exert so much effort (read money) for the effect. Maybe is is useful for someone who does not want their website to be tracked by big brother(tm)... which is feasible in the US now-a-days. Yet just by doing that, one would need to be using open AP's that one is flying by, just asking for Federal Freddy to not so proverbially nail your ass to the pr

if nothing else think of the implications of a highly mobile (flying) intranet- the original design was to survive a nuclear holocaust and this further helps that (although i doubt it gets high enough to really make a different)-- however it is a step in that direction.
Also, think of military uses, again it would need to be high altitude to be really usable but a highly mobile communications system could replace microwave point to point communications in that sense.
but hell, i really dont know what im t

Because a flock of small, redundant machines is more reliable than a single one that fails all at once. And more scalable, especially in smaller increments. And more adaptable to multiple simultaneous tasks, as the real world often demands. And possibly cheaper to produce. The same architecture and economics that have multiplied smaller, cheaper networked machines on the ground is also compelling in the air - maybe more so, given the extra risks.

Given that there's a limit to the amount of cpu power that can fit into any given size of airplane, the flying cluster can have much higher "brainpower" than a single vehicle. If nothing else, it should allow the cluster to more easily recognise objects, threats, etc without having to refer back to an operator.

And as you say, there's builtin redundancy, so that maybe the cluster could decide to risk a member by letting it peek around or over an object while the main group stays safe. Also, members could b

The planes might be able to exploit each other aerodynamically as well. If a plane can position itself in the upward moving portion of the wingtip vortex of the plane in front of it, it could potentially use less power to keep itself airborne. If the planes rotate the "leadership" position then they may be able to fly for extended periods of time.

Yes, I see great applications in public safety. There are traffic speed sensors on the highways, and a sudden slowdown is often the first indicator of an accident. There are cameras but they don't cover end-to-end. Nest one of these every few miles and you can launch to investigate traffic slowdowns or confirmed accidents. Pipe the video to emergency response and they can dispatch exactly what resources are needed and paramedics can get a heads up on the kinds of injuries they are likely to be dealing with.

Call 911 and get an automatic dispatch of one to your location, arriving within 30 seconds in an urban location. Gives police and fire a heads up on what they will be facing when they arrive a few minutes later. Use them to monitor views of fires that can't be seen from the ground.

Real-life applications is probably going to be something like smart sensor networks, you strap a small sensor to each little plane, send it out, tell them to flock together and have maybe one slight larger plane lagging behind which sends all the data back (power requirements for satelite communication and all). a lot harder to shoot down and a lot cheaper (and easier) to replace if it does get shot down.

Hm maybe I missed it -- I didn't see him mentioned in TFA...but it is late. Anyway if he's not, he should be -- as far as I know he was the first to figure out and demonstrate how a few simple rules can generate flocking behavior (Cryptacool lists [slashdot.org] the rules in another comment).

As an A-LIFE dork I think the fact that they got these planes to exhibit true (if they arent lying little light on details) flocking behavior, it's not hard to make things flock it takes basically 3 instructions.

1) Follow the plane/bird in front of you2) Go about as fast as the plane/birds around you3) Don't hit other birds/planes, keep a reasonable distance.

Emergent behavior is really amazing if you are interested in it some more check out alife9.org Its the website of the last alife conference in boston that took place over the summer, really neat stuff in there.

Hmm, I could be wrong about this, but flocking behavior is *vastly* more complex than the three points that listed in the parent's post.

From what I understand, flocking doesn't result from just 'following the birds adjacent to you', but instead a result of optimizing a complex multiplanar lifting system [aerodyn.org] in order to reduce total flight power demand.

Honestly, I'd be suprised if the researchers were able to emulate the real purpose of a flock, instead of just emulating superficial swarming behavior -- there was a very readable article in Science written by two guys at Caltech on flight efficiency & flocking [davidslife.com], and they conclude with the premise that: "theoretically 25 birds could have a range increase of about 70 percent as compared with a lone bird"

IMO, programmed swarming behavior is nothing new, but if these researchers run with the ball and generate *real* efficiency-optimizing flocking behavior with man-made aircraft, the ramifactions could be huge.

Lift optimising behaviour is a special case of general flocking behaviour that provides a particular evolutionary benefit for long journeys, for example by geese. Basic flocking behaviour (for example flocks of starlings) doesn't exhibit this. The latter requires relatively small numbers of local rules to create the emergent behaviour. There is still debate on how locally each bird looks to determine its flight path and to what extent it looks to birds beyond its immediate locality.

I think you're confusing the purpose of flocking with how it comes about. The bird's are not actively sitting down and "optimizing a complex multiplanar lifting system". The optimization can be an emergent behavior that arises from simple flocking rules.

I'm amazed that the article didn't include any references to "Homeland Security" or "fighting terrorism". Doesn't it seem like every single goddamned new idea, or retread of an old one, gets stretched in the marketing to push the security applications for terrorism?

with that said it really shouldn't be surprising that everything has military applications.. HOWEVER! i do agree with your base point and understand that what I am saying is slightly different than what you are saying. cheers.

I believe that's the University of Essex in the UK - we went on a tour there to see their robotics dept. The helicopter is hovering above their powerd floor so that robots can re-charge whilst on the floor (that's how I could tell it was the UK Essex)

Pretty cool idea though - wish I'd gone to that campus now instead of the Southend one.

I went to Essex (BSc and MSc), and while Owen Holland (who I was taught by for MSc) is great, and the CompSci and ESE departments churn out a lot of cool research, I wouldn't advise anyone to go there for undergrad work.

Why? Let's just say the university authorities haven't grasped why treating "undergraduate students" as "consumers" is inherently wrong. University should be about getting out, exploring life and extending your horizons. The UG CompSci programme has a distressing tendency

Maybe in the US, but here in the UK we're refreshingly clear of unnecessary terrorist paranoia.

Might be because we don't currently have a large, powerful right-wing coalition bent on dominating the entire political process, who needs a constant state of paranoia and fear to create the climate in which they can fulfill their orwellian wet-dreams (it's our "left"-wing party now)...

Or possibly just that we sensibly got all that expansionist empire-building crap out of our systems a hundred years ago, before

Yep. We Brits got used to terrorists years ago, with the IRA blowing up random bits of scenery as well as a number of innocent bystanders and, occasionally, themselves. It's probably a good thing we didn't send troops to sort out the people funding the IRA because, as I recall, it was widely believed that Irish-Americans were up there on the list of contributors. If Dubya had been Prime Minister back then, he'd have invaded New York...

I'm visualizing a flock of computer controled ultralight orinthopters with wings made of plastic explosive. Commanded, they flock and gather on places where a demolition charge needs to be set. Once a critical number gathers, they organize to make a shaped charge, and BOOM!!!.

Also, visualize a bombsquad guy in all that padding chasing these things with a net.

Whatever happened to Crichton? 'Andromeda strain', 'The great train robbery' and a few of his others were badass. I recently read 'Timeline' and 'Prey' and to say there were shit is giving them a generous review. As for his little rant about global warming in 'State of Fear'. Well. Let me put it like this: It's ok to be dangerously uninformed as long as people don't actually listen to you.

I see a natural benefit to building flying webservers. When the/. effect kicks in, you accellerate to increase the cooling, and if nessicary, you take the flock out of populated areas to burst into flames. Probably work better in england, here in my part of Texas the red tailed hawks would probably take 'em down.

In a red state I don't think it will just be hawks tailing these guys... "What we got ourselves here is a real live specimen of web servus linuxtrocious. Remember, just winging them won't take it down, that OSS software can take a licking and keep on ticking. Better bring out the AP ammo."

Actually, no virus will be needed. Just shoot down the lead "bird", and the rest will fly in formation smack into the ground. Wish that shooting ducks was that easy, although it wouldn't be "sporting".

The following are obvious ideas, but maybe publishing them could prevent patenting.
* A queue of cars is also like a flock
* Onboard computers can co-operate in helping drive the cars, or entirely drive the cars
* The cars can use a suitable operating system, such as Linux.
* The cars can communicate through radio, light, sound etc., using any protocol, for example blue-tooth.
* At a junction, any car can choose to leave its current flock and join one heading more towards the car's destination.
* Each floc

It would be interesting to have packs of these things fly around in a pattern and meet up with one another periodically and share pending packets. They would also periodically fly near base stations and exchange packets with the network there. It would be like a fully-networked version of RFC 1149!

I can see how parts of this might be interesting in a military application. Run several UAV [af.mil]'s in formation with one person controlling them. Use the bluetooth to enable them to triangulate positions and keep from getting too close to one another.

So you fly it for 10-15 minutes max and then come in for a 30 minute recharge. Seems like ghe ground crew are going to be very busy for the anticipated "flock".

With enough battery power to run for 10 minutes or even one hour, there has to be a fast and convenient way to re-charge or re-fuel. In-flight would be good. Consider a larger battery filled helocopter flying nearby. When a plane or copter needed recharging it would fly nearby and couple itself with the re-charger. How to transfer energy from

So I presume the each military will get some manufacturer to build custom bluetooth chips (operating on military frequencies), then fit everything of note with these. Finally have your flocks of servers moving the data around and creating/maintainging redundant communication links (perhaps ferrying meta-data across the prime network, data on demand and delivering drops of data at other times perhaps literally with cards), providing intelligence on the ground and back to base. I can also forsee these bei

Since when has Essex been in the US? Here [essex.ac.uk] is the guy doing the research and here [google.co.uk] is where he is located. Spot the blue stuff between the East coast of the US and Colchester? Not sure Google has mapped out Europe yet mind you;-)
O.